What 13 year old boy wouldn't?

[BFritz21]

(06-20-2016, 12:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You said the guy claimed he had permission to use the car when you knew he testified that he knew he did not have permission.

you were lying.  No other way to explain it.

I said he admitted in the criminal suit that he knew he had permission, and then in the civil suit he tried to lie to change it to protect the caretaker/cemetery because there was a clause in their insurance about wrecking in a stolen car.  

You even said that there was such a thing as borrowing, which now you're going back on.  

You're lying, like always.

Aside from the borrowing, putting the keys and the alcohol in the car, at the very least, gave him implied permission to drive the car.

(06-20-2016, 12:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: we have been over that aboutr 100 times.  Every time yiou try to make that claim everyoen leaughs at you and agrees that I was being sarcastic and not lying at all.  Why do you even try to keep bringing it up when everyone agrees with me that I was not lying?

I have never told a lie here.

You are the proven liar.  Not me.

That makes no sense.  

You were trying to sound smart and just thought that I'd roll over and accept it. 

If you were being sarcastic, you wouldn't have spent so much time trying to deny saying it and even posted the link denying saying it, not claiming you were being sarcastic.

It took you a while to settle on the sarcastic defense after so many other attempts to defend yourself failed.